"" Mike Wallace BETTER stay in Miami, that's my guy." Guess who?

That's a pipe dream. Suh will get somewhere between McCoy and Watt money. Now, if we said Ellerbe, Hartline, and Gibson's salaries, then it would be close.

 

IKR?. I have the belief that the way to build a strong roster, is keep your good players, and go out and find more good players. Wallace is a good player.

 

Precisely. And again, if he isn't the Calvin Johnson some thought he would be in 2015 then it's quite easy to dump his salary. In the mean time you can draft a WR high and bring him along slowly.

 

I think you're splitting hairs here. It's still going to be a big number to play for another team.

 

I love it. You misinterpret and object to what I wrote (by misreading what I wrote, even quoting it wrong), and when I correct you, it's "semantics."

What a cop out. This just got boring.

I'm all for cutting Wallace and Hartline if we can find two suitable replacements. Preferably an elite prospect (or top tier at least), and a solid blue collar (effort and price) veteran. Can we coax something out of Crabtree? I don't think his value is all that high right now. Cobb is probably out of reach if we're trying to trim fat from the WR salary rolls.

 

You should probably figure out if you either love it or if you're bored/disappointed and go with just one or the other if you're going to do some sort of bizarre grandstanding thing.

Your comparison is just bad. You're coming up with a contortion that paints Wallace is the best possible light(when comparing 1 year of past performance to 1 upcoming year of base salary...not even cap space).

It really won't be that hard to find suitable replacements.

 

You've intimated this before, but how can you say that about Wallace's production? I mean I agree it won't be hard to replace Hartline's production, but Wallace's? The last itme we had a WR put up those numbers was Chris Chambers only really good season which was 2005. The closest we've been since then was Brandon Marshall and that cost us 2 2nds and it still was low in TDs. What about that is "not hard"?

 

The only way one should believe it difficult to replace Mike Wallace's 2014 production is if one believes that catching touchdown passes in the red zone reflects an ability or a trait of a receiver, and that such an ability or trait won't be easily replicated by someone else. The rest of Wallace's production in 2014 isn't atypical among starting receivers who were targeted the number of times Wallace was.

The game and the team were different when Chris Chambers did what he did in 2005. There's no reason to believe Wallace's production can't be replicated simply because one has to reach so far back into Dolphins history to find something similar. That should have no bearing on the issue when one considers the current quarterback, the current offensive philosophy, and the current emphasis on the passing game in the NFL.

 

The only thing that Mike Wallace has done of any particular merit has been as a red zone target in 2014. Everything else is pedestrian at best.

You can replace that this off-season, and much more cheaply with a Denarius Moore or Eddie Royal. You can actually find a real-life star receiver who actually deserves to be paid what Wallace is paying and reduce your overall cost at the position this offseason.

 

And in my opinion the team and the fans would immediately notice the difference in RAC ability provided by an Eddie Royal, for example, and how that fits like a perfect puzzle piece with Ryan Tannehill's abilities.

 

You save 2.5 M in cap space by cutting Wallace, you won't sniff a WR who can fill his shoes with that space.

 

He also opens things up underneath and manages to beat coverages for chunk yardage, Eddie Royal had P. Rivers throwing to him and his numbers aren't comparable. Sorry.

 

In free agency, no. But in the draft? Certainly doable.

 

I don't see how this is even a question, really - unless behind the scenes Wallace is stating he just won't play. Miami needs to be adding depth and talent, not throwing it away. Wallace is here, he's under contract, and whatever else anyone might think of him, he's an athletic, talented player who has something to offer. It's not as though there's a massive financial upside in getting rid of him.

The coaches should be looking hard at what happened this year and be thinking about how things can be improved and that should include seeing what Wallace brings, the fact that he wants to win, and how to best use that, not throw it away. If the coaches can't figure out how to use Mike Wallace then Miami has far bigger issues than one reactionary wide-out. Of course, at this point T17 comes into the question - can he even throw to Wallace. The answer is, that if not, the team should be sending him off to learn how, investing in the QB they've all but committed to, and teach him a deep-ball, and then they should be getting the two of them together to become a potent weapon. Otherwise, what are they in business for?

 

In the draft is where you find his replacement for 2016 when it actually makes sense to consider parting ways with him. It's certainly more common than 10 years ago but rookie WRs don't come right in and produce all the time.

 

^ This.

 

It's really only a question with a few posters who have hated Mike Wallace from day one....same guys who wanted Brandon Marshall gone from day one.

The proposal lacks logic from a common sense standpoint and a football operation standpoint. But that certainly will not slow those guys down.

 

Both teams throw short predominantly. If you're a team that throws short predominantly, then you should prioritize a receiving corps (including the running backs, a la Shane Vereen) who can get YAC, not downfield streakers with compartively little YAC ability like Mike Wallace. If your QB is one for whom the case isn't yet closed on his longball ability (Tannehill), then you can always make sure those receivers have long speed in addition to their YAC ability. TY Hilton/Randall Cobb/Jeremy Maclin types, for example.

An interesting comparison: on passes thrown 20 yards or fewer in the air in 2014, Mike Wallace caught 63 passes for 705 yards, 11.2 yards per catch, and 9 TDs.

Brandon LaFell caught 68 such passes for 801 yards, 11.8 yards per catch, and 6 TDs.

In other words, in the area in which both teams throw predominantly (fewer than 20 yards in the air), Brandon LaFell and his salary cap hit of $2 million did roughly the same for his team as did Mike Wallace and his salary cap hit of $17.25 million.

Now, imagine if the Dolphins had gotten Wallace's production from a receiver who counted only $2 million against the cap (such as LaFell), and it could've put the other $15 million of Wallace's share toward talent at other positions? Might the team have made the playoffs?

And I realize 2014 is over and done with, but you don't continue to pay players in this way. It's bad business and a bad organizational ethic not to have your players' production match their salary cap hits. And when they're as discrepant as they are for Wallace, you jettison the player in my opinion, and you do it quickly.

 

The problem with your argument is that the Patriots have much better resources to create RAC and 20+ plays, those resources are TOM Brady and his OL.

 

And imagine if we had Tom Brady throwing it

 

This has been covered ad nauseam. At his absolute best, the attention Mike Wallace made it more likely that there would be a deep safety over the top of him. It's not a particularly big advantage. He didn't come close to getting the kind of attention elite receivers get. He didn't even meet that standard this year, and towards the end of the year, there was a crystal clear trend of Jarvis Landry drawing extra attention.

No he doesn't.

This year he had a single 20+ yard gain more than Charles Clay, who was hurt for most of the year.

In 2013 he had three less than Brian Hartline, and one more than Charles Clay.

In 2012 with the Steelers he had less than Brian Hartline and Davone Bess.

Like everything Mike Wallace related, you've got to go back to 2011 before you see anything of merit.

They're certainly comparable, and if anything Royal was at a disadvantage because he saw less targets as a #2 receiver.

It should also come as no surprise that Royal had more "chunk yardage" plays than Wallace this year too.

 

That reflects more on Tannehill than Wallace, really.

 

In the only areas in which Tom Brady outperformed Ryan Tannehill in 2014, Ryan Tannehill has improved in each of his seasons in the league.

The difference in essence between them in 2014 was that Brady threw 6 more TDs and 3 fewer INTs, though again, Tannehill has improved in both of those areas in each of his seasons in the league.

With regard to completion percentage, total yardage, YPA, and downfield passing, however, they were virtually indistinguishable.

So again, the mission should be to surround Tannehill with the kinds of receivers with whom Brady thrives, to the point of being in the Super Bowl.

 

Randy Moss? Brady has hit deep. And can still hit deep. They just don't have the WRs to do it.

 

What it reflects is that Wallace is miscast in an offense that prioritizes the short and intermediate pass.

If Wallace were the kind of receiver who could catch short and intermediate passes and do something with them, a la Golden Tate for example, his number of chunk plays would presumably be much higher.

 

And yet they're in the Super Bowl.

So, if you have a quarterback whose style is very similar to Tom Brady's in 2014, you should surround him with the kind of players Tom Brady had in 2014, guys who catch short and intermediate range passes and do something with them.

Again, Mike Wallace was 75th in the league in YAC in 2014, while the Patriots had four players in the top 33 in the league in that area.

 

So then go get those guys and once we have them, then you can get rid of Wallace. Until then, you're creating holes.

Remember what 2012 was like at WR. Lets not get rid of the only dynamic WR we have until we have others.

 

No it doesn't...Philip Rivers is in SD not Miami

 

Or the protection Tom has...

If you switched the WR core, I see no real argument that supports Bray being worse or Ryan better.

 

Again, it's really not.

Ryan Tannehill can't hit 40+ yard deep passes like Ben Roethlisberger can but that's hardly here nor there.

 

So what?

Mike Wallace recreated his 2012 season basically twice once he's moved to Miami. Brandon Gibson was producing exactly like he did with the Rams previously in the first half of 2013. There's been pretty consistent performances offensively when you've seen guys imported from elsewhere. Likewise, Royal produced similar upside with Jay Cutler.

 

That's because Jay Cutler can hit an open WR down the field, your arguments continue to fail on this subject. You can hate Mike Wallace for another season...then likely pull out some "told you we were going to get rid of him" posts. You can have that satisfaction in about 13.5 months, until then enjoy the show.

 

Yeah I wish he were Desean Jackson too (who I've always liked ... on the field). Are we sure Lazor prefers the heavy short/intermediate pass game? He noted he removed those until Tanny got better, and he slowly introduced them later in the year.

And Lazor has been somewhat critical of Tannehill a few times (and praised him) while basically performing verbal fellatio when singing the praises of Mike Wallace.

Going off on Lazor's public statements: Wallace>Tannehill.

 

So it reflects on Tannehill then. Wallace's lack of big plays is because Tanny isn't Roethlisberger.

 

What are you even talking about?

Eddie Royal's production in 2008 and in general has very little to do with "down the field".

 

http://overthecap.com/dolphins-2015-salary-cap-outlook/

 

It doesn't reflect on Tannehill on any meaningful sense.

Wallace is incapable of playing to an even average level in terms of producing "chunk" yardage as a starting wide receiver, and his success came at the hands of arguably the best guy in the league at throwing those deep passes accurately.

 

I'd imagine we could throw alot more resources at the oline if we didn't have to pay Mike Wallace for the production of Branden LaFell.

I'd imagine that we could have some upgrades at receiver if we weren't stuck paying Wallace so much. For all of Wallace's dynamic ability, he produced in our offense like Branden LaFell. Now, this isn't about blame, because there's enough of that to go around. It's about production. If you can get Wallace's production, at a fraction of the cost, from a LaFell, it seems a no brainer.

We'll all look like idiots next year, though, if Wallace and Tannehill are able to start connecting on a semi-consistent basis.

 

Imagining is one thing. Doing is another. I can imagine getting Demaryius Thomas, but I don't think I should cut bait on Wallace till I have a reasonable chance at DT.

Its an 85% chance Wallace will repeat his numbers or better them, IMO. LaFell is at best 50%.